To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

THE DEBATE about abortion has sharpened
for many the question of the relationship between religion and politics. In the midst of the emotional
rhetoric, I find it helpful to reexamine the calm .
and reasonable thought of the great Jesuit
theologian J«hn Courtney Murray, who wrote
j perceptively about questions of religious
eedom and church and state until his death
) 1967 (We Hold These Truths). Murray's care-
il study of "the American consensus" or the
ublic philosophy of the United States is espe-
ially helpful in trying to search for a middle
osition between those who advocate a con-
itutional amendment and those who speak,
Dout divorcing private morality from public policy.
Ideally, this consensus or public philosophy
insists of self-evident truths discerned by
ason reflecting on human experience. It is
oted in the sacredness and personal dignity
human beings and is the basis for all our
ws and institutions. The consensus maintains
the importance of both individual freedom and
icial harmony. This public philosophy deter-
mines the broad purposes of the nation, guides
the formation of policy, facilitates communication among the citizens and makes reasonable
ssent possible without leading to anarchy.
The consensus exists in the minds and hearts
average citizens and gives them an almost
intuitive ability to discern, eventually, serious
itortion in governmental policy. It exists in a
are reflective and explicit way in the minds
all those equipped by education and training
take an intelligent interest in public affairs,
is includes academicians and experts in
philosophy, politics, economics and history as
as politicians, writers, journalists and the
?rgy. It is their task to articulate the public
nsensus and to bring it to bear on changing
cumstances and new issues.
The public consensus involves a dynamic un-
rstanding of the evolving national self-under-
nding and must be reappropriafed by each
rceeding generation. It does not necessarily
incide with the majority opinion in the na-
n, but it does possess the intrinsic potential
persuade those who now disagree with it.
i consensus is achieved by civil discourse
i reasonable argumentation. The legal order
1 governmental functions should be a reflec
tion of this public philosophy. Historically, the
core of the consensus was summarized in the
; self-evident conviction that "all men are created
equal and are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights.*
Murray well understood the limitations of the
public consensus as it has actually evolved in
the United States. The existence of divinely
sanctioned self-evident truths has been denied;
groups have been excluded from equal protection under the law; gaps have developed between intellectual leaders and the average
people and the content of the consensus has
been disputed. Already in Murray's time it was
clear that the public philosophy was in disarray.
However, he kept insisting on the necessity of
renewing the consensus imorder to insure the
survival and well-being of the nation.
From this perspective, it is evident that a
merely private morality is inadequate to the
needs of the times. The great issues of today,
such as nuclear war, economic justice, civil
rights and abortion, have moral dimension. Religious traditions have accumulated important
insights that can enrich the public debate on
such matters. Religion and politics meet in the
consciences of believing citizens who must
bring, their values to bear on forming a consensus in order to achieve public policy.
One could also employ Murray's ideas on
the public consensus to understand the line of
argumentation used by those who abhor abortion but are opposed to a restrictive constitutional amendment. They begin with the fact
that there does not now exist, especially among
the shapers of public opinion, a consensus that
fetal life should be accorded equal protection
under the law. Therefore, legislation restricting
abortion would promote illegal acts and under
cut respect for authority, much as the prohibition laws did decades ago. It would violate the
freedom of the so-called "pro-choice" advocates, causing them to harden their position
and making dialogue more difficult.
Restrictive legislation would repeat the mistake of the 1973 Supreme Court decision that
effectively established the pro-choice position
before the society as a whole could come even
close to a consensus on the matter. Thus, the
notion of the public consensus provides the
basis for a defensible argument for those who
find abortion to be morally repugnant but who
intuitively think restrictive legislation is not wise
now.
Finally, Murray's analysis suggests a positive
course of action for all who favor a pro-life
position. The task is to help shape the public
consensus so there is general agreement that
fetal life possesses an inherent dignity and deserves protection under the law.
This effort must be directed especially to
those academic, political, cultural and religious
leaders who have the power to influence the
public philosophy. These people are generally
turned off by intemperate rhetoric and coercive
activities. They are more open to careful argumentation, patient dialogue and reasonable
compromise. They often fear single-issue politics and are more receptive to a pro-life ethic
that is consistently applied to issues such as
war, capital punishment and support for poor,
unwed mothers.
The public consensus is what makes both
constitutional and statutory legislation possibje
and effective. Prohibition did not work, because there was no clear public philosophy supporting it. The civil rights legislation of the
1960s was more successful because a consensus had been reached among those who had
the power to shape public opinion. Today,
there are opportunities to influence the public
consensus through simple conversation, informed debate and constructive action based
on a consistent pro-life ethic.
Thus, Murray's analysis suggests a viable alternative for those who realize that a merely
private morality is inconsistent and judge that
the time is not right for restrictive legislation.
Father James Bacik is campus minister and
an adjunct professor of humanities at the University of Toledo, Ohio.

THE DEBATE about abortion has sharpened
for many the question of the relationship between religion and politics. In the midst of the emotional
rhetoric, I find it helpful to reexamine the calm .
and reasonable thought of the great Jesuit
theologian J«hn Courtney Murray, who wrote
j perceptively about questions of religious
eedom and church and state until his death
) 1967 (We Hold These Truths). Murray's care-
il study of "the American consensus" or the
ublic philosophy of the United States is espe-
ially helpful in trying to search for a middle
osition between those who advocate a con-
itutional amendment and those who speak,
Dout divorcing private morality from public policy.
Ideally, this consensus or public philosophy
insists of self-evident truths discerned by
ason reflecting on human experience. It is
oted in the sacredness and personal dignity
human beings and is the basis for all our
ws and institutions. The consensus maintains
the importance of both individual freedom and
icial harmony. This public philosophy deter-
mines the broad purposes of the nation, guides
the formation of policy, facilitates communication among the citizens and makes reasonable
ssent possible without leading to anarchy.
The consensus exists in the minds and hearts
average citizens and gives them an almost
intuitive ability to discern, eventually, serious
itortion in governmental policy. It exists in a
are reflective and explicit way in the minds
all those equipped by education and training
take an intelligent interest in public affairs,
is includes academicians and experts in
philosophy, politics, economics and history as
as politicians, writers, journalists and the
?rgy. It is their task to articulate the public
nsensus and to bring it to bear on changing
cumstances and new issues.
The public consensus involves a dynamic un-
rstanding of the evolving national self-under-
nding and must be reappropriafed by each
rceeding generation. It does not necessarily
incide with the majority opinion in the na-
n, but it does possess the intrinsic potential
persuade those who now disagree with it.
i consensus is achieved by civil discourse
i reasonable argumentation. The legal order
1 governmental functions should be a reflec
tion of this public philosophy. Historically, the
core of the consensus was summarized in the
; self-evident conviction that "all men are created
equal and are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights.*
Murray well understood the limitations of the
public consensus as it has actually evolved in
the United States. The existence of divinely
sanctioned self-evident truths has been denied;
groups have been excluded from equal protection under the law; gaps have developed between intellectual leaders and the average
people and the content of the consensus has
been disputed. Already in Murray's time it was
clear that the public philosophy was in disarray.
However, he kept insisting on the necessity of
renewing the consensus imorder to insure the
survival and well-being of the nation.
From this perspective, it is evident that a
merely private morality is inadequate to the
needs of the times. The great issues of today,
such as nuclear war, economic justice, civil
rights and abortion, have moral dimension. Religious traditions have accumulated important
insights that can enrich the public debate on
such matters. Religion and politics meet in the
consciences of believing citizens who must
bring, their values to bear on forming a consensus in order to achieve public policy.
One could also employ Murray's ideas on
the public consensus to understand the line of
argumentation used by those who abhor abortion but are opposed to a restrictive constitutional amendment. They begin with the fact
that there does not now exist, especially among
the shapers of public opinion, a consensus that
fetal life should be accorded equal protection
under the law. Therefore, legislation restricting
abortion would promote illegal acts and under
cut respect for authority, much as the prohibition laws did decades ago. It would violate the
freedom of the so-called "pro-choice" advocates, causing them to harden their position
and making dialogue more difficult.
Restrictive legislation would repeat the mistake of the 1973 Supreme Court decision that
effectively established the pro-choice position
before the society as a whole could come even
close to a consensus on the matter. Thus, the
notion of the public consensus provides the
basis for a defensible argument for those who
find abortion to be morally repugnant but who
intuitively think restrictive legislation is not wise
now.
Finally, Murray's analysis suggests a positive
course of action for all who favor a pro-life
position. The task is to help shape the public
consensus so there is general agreement that
fetal life possesses an inherent dignity and deserves protection under the law.
This effort must be directed especially to
those academic, political, cultural and religious
leaders who have the power to influence the
public philosophy. These people are generally
turned off by intemperate rhetoric and coercive
activities. They are more open to careful argumentation, patient dialogue and reasonable
compromise. They often fear single-issue politics and are more receptive to a pro-life ethic
that is consistently applied to issues such as
war, capital punishment and support for poor,
unwed mothers.
The public consensus is what makes both
constitutional and statutory legislation possibje
and effective. Prohibition did not work, because there was no clear public philosophy supporting it. The civil rights legislation of the
1960s was more successful because a consensus had been reached among those who had
the power to shape public opinion. Today,
there are opportunities to influence the public
consensus through simple conversation, informed debate and constructive action based
on a consistent pro-life ethic.
Thus, Murray's analysis suggests a viable alternative for those who realize that a merely
private morality is inconsistent and judge that
the time is not right for restrictive legislation.
Father James Bacik is campus minister and
an adjunct professor of humanities at the University of Toledo, Ohio.